Our Lady is Omnipotent?

[Atemi]

Beside the point - it is entirely the individual Bishop and/or Censor’s *private personal opinion *that there is no error that inhibits or permits the granting of a Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur. They don’t really need to refer to the mind of the Church at all in making this determination.

They don’t need to give reasons or any sort of detailed analysis as to why they’ve done so. They don’t need to refer it to Rome to check their conclusion that there is no error according to capital-o Official teaching, nothing of the sort.

Being a decision of an individual Bishop and/or his delegate, there is no suggestion of infallibility and little even of ‘the mind of the Church’ about it - purely the mind of the individual Bishop and/or Censor.

Please join us back on the topic. If you keep insisting on hijacking the thread, simply make your own so the rest of us can get back to the point of the OP.

Are you saying that the accepted teaching that Mary is omnipotent is a false doctrine or true doctrine? You have not made that point clear.

True or false doctrine?

 

[Atemi]

I am disappointed that Atemi has refused to address the very exact meaning that Liguori assigns to “omnipotent” when speaking of Mary, but has only feigned horror over the use of the word.

I addressed it again and again, Mike.

HOW someone is omniopotent is not nearly as important that they indeed are.

That meaning, which Liguori cites over and over, is that Mary is omnipotent in that God grants everything she asks. Now immediately we see that this is not our usual meaning of “omnipotent”, since Mary must ask and God must grant. There’s certainly nothing heretical in the concept of God granting something we ask!

Please name all the other created beings in Catholic theology that are also omnipotent in this same fashion or otherwise.

Which saints or angels are also omnipotent?

So, the only question left to discuss (and which Atemi has steadfastly refused to discuss) is whether God does indeed grant every request of Mary’s. I am aware of no Catholic teaching that clearly answers “yes” or “no” to that question, but going on general principles it would seem at least reasonable to believe that the answer is “yes”. Why? Because in heaven our wills are perfectly aligned with the will of God. In heaven we would never ask for anything that went against the will of God. That is certainly a reasonable thing to believe. If one does not believe it, one must explain how our will in heaven could go against God’s will in heaven. But at least the entire question is open to reasoned discussion, rather than hysterical polemics.

But there has been no reasoned discussion of this one question from the “other side” on this thread. Their determined refusal to discuss this one, legitimate question points to less than pure motives on their part.

Ahhh.

So you agree that Mary is all powerful and that is just a benign little doctrine (that most of the Catholics here seem to deny pretty harshly for some reason).

Since such an idea is so very reasonable to you in Catholic thought…

Please name all the other created beings in Catholic theology that are also omnipotent in this same fashion or otherwise.

…

 

[Atemi]

But you claimed that neither you nor Liguori was talking about the omnipotence of God.

No I did not. I said that both I and Ligouri are not saying Mary is God.

You can’t keep trying to have it both ways here. I’m getting a headache.

You were wrong. You said that it’s not like Ligouri was talking about Mary’s omnipotence being God’s.

In actuality, that is exactly the omnipotence he was referring to: no more, no less.

So much for a silly redefinition of “omnipotence,” Mike.

BTW, you never answered my question. Will we not all be omnipotent, in Liguori’s meaning, when we are in heaven?

We will?

Is that what Catholicism has taught you or soemthing you just made up?

Please name all the other created beings in Catholic theology that are also omnipotent in this same fashion or otherwise.

…

 

[LilyM]

Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are for the safety and correct doctrine of all Catholics and that is why the auditors are so carefully chosen by the Church.

I will not apologize for actually understanding what they are for and the function they are designed to serve. They are surely not designed to serve the doctrinal whims of lone bishops as some would imagine.

…

Auditors? Never heard of such persons in the Church hierarchy. Could you possibly mean the censors? At least use the correct term if you expect to be taken seriously.

Please enlighten us as to exactly what process the Church goes through in appointing them, since you clearly know so much better than I. And be sure to provide sources, I’d be interested in looking at them myself.

The fact is the censor of each diocese is merely appointed by the Bishop himself - as the selfsame wiki article you cited states. Please correct me if I’m wrong - do you have information from a Catholic source to the effect that they’re imposed on the Bishop by Rome and required to go through university training in Censorship beforehand or something of that nature?

Imprimaturs are indeed tools that individual bishops do use to give guidance as to which works are heretical or not. Not based on whim, no, but certainly on personal judgement rather than being an attempt at speaking for the Church. And no, no consultation beyond the Bishop’s and Censor’s own best judgements are necessary or common either in the appointment of censors or in the granting of Imprimaturs.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Please join us back on the topic. If you keep insisting on hijacking the thread, simply make your own so the rest of us can get back to the point of the OP.

Are you saying that the accepted teaching that Mary is omnipotent is a false doctrine or true doctrine? You have not made that point clear.

True or false doctrine?

The Catholic Church does not affirm that Mary is omnipotent. If you look at the Catechism of the Catholic, it does not teach it.

The Glories of Mary was written by a doctor of the Church Liguori, who wrote it for the reason to combat a heresy of explaining the devotion of Mary. He posses poetic terms.

He did use the word omnipotent to explain the relation between Mary and Her Son, Jesus Christ. If one read this in a literally sense they will use it to distort the truth.

Non-Catholics will use his Liguori’s writings as if it were an infallible writing of a Pope, but isn’t. They will use it to mislead Catholics away from the Catholic Church.

 

[LilyM]

Please join us back on the topic. If you keep insisting on hijacking the thread, simply make your own so the rest of us can get back to the point of the OP.

Are you saying that the accepted teaching that Mary is omnipotent is a false doctrine or true doctrine? You have not made that point clear.

True or false doctrine?

It is not doctrine at all, regardless of its truth or falsity.

You have no idea of how doctrine is taught if you think Liguori’s writings plus Imprimatur = doctrine. That simply isn’t the way doctrine is expounded!

Again I need to point out that it were, Aquinas’ writings denying the idea of the Immaculate Conception would be doctrine alongside Ineffabilis Deus and the writings of other Church Doctors affirming that same Immaculate Conception. Preposterous.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It is not doctrine at all, regardless of its truth or falsity.

You have no idea of how doctrine is taught if you think Liguori’s writings plus Imprimatur = doctrine. That simply isn’t the way doctrine is expounded!

Exactly but then again Atemi will just ignore it as always.

 

[VociMike]

Please join us back on the topic. If you keep insisting on hijacking the thread, simply make your own so the rest of us can get back to the point of the OP.

Nice try. Totally bogus, but nice try. You really seem determined to avoid the meat of the issue here. I laid out the entire issue for you as plain as day. But I’m happy to do it again, if for no other reason than to highlight your obstinate refusal to deal with the issue, but rather to keep having faux fainting spells over the word “omnipotent”.

Liguori defines Mary’s omnipotence as being that God grants everything that Mary asks. Now this is clearly not omnipotence in the usual meaning. Intellectual honesty compels one to acknowledge this. IMO, Liguori should not have created a new definition of “omnipotent” for dramatic effect, but he did, and that is the definition we are stuck with if we wish to discuss his writings.

So, there is only one question remaining. Is it heretical to believe that God grants every request that Mary makes? As I said, I am not aware of any Catholic teaching that answers “yes” or “no” to this question, but it seems at least reasonable to believe that he does grant every request, for the simple reason that if our wills are united to God’s will in heaven, we will never request anything that goes against God’s will.

Now you will no doubt again make the bogus accusation that I am hijacking this thread, as if discussing what Liguori actually means by his words is somehow hijacking a thread which centers around Liguori’s words But rational people can clearly see that my questions above are at the very core of the thread, and far from hijacking this thread I am doing my best to attempt to deal with the substance of the thread.

So the ball is now in your court again. Will you address the one and only issue, whether it is heretical to believe what Liguori asserts, or will you continue to avoid the one and only issue?

 

[AngelsAmongUs]

As a new Catholic, even I understand what Liguori meant when he used the word omnipotent in regards to Mary. It is not uncommon when people write to use figurative language, hyperbole, idioms and metaphors when conveying their thoughts. You can probably pick up any book in the library and it would contain this sort of language including the bible. To refuse to recognize that is disingenuous at best. It is also important to be familiar with the author’s writing style, because it helps to determine the author’s intent. But I suppose Atemi has studied Liguori’s writings intensively and therefore knows what Liguori meant in every aspect.

Now the definition of hyperbole according to dictionary.com :

**hy·per·bo·le
–noun Rhetoric.

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”**

Now, if I said, " It is raining cats and dogs outside" my intent would be to convey that it is raining really hard outside. But some wise guy might try to claim that I meant exactly what I said…that it was literally raining “cats” and “dogs.” No room for hyperbole when a wise guy wants to prove to everyone how smart he is or just be argumentative for the sake of arguing.

By the way, before I’m accused of calling names or attacking Atemi in any way, I am not. I am simply reiterating what the other posters have been trying to say for 8 pages. Atemi, believe what you want to believe. But you aren’t convincing in your efforts to claim to “know” what the CC teaches by picking one sentence out of one book and refusing to put the author in context. It is simply dishonest to do so.

Also I would like it very much if you would address VokiMike’s question: Is it heretical to believe that God grants every request that Mary makes? It’s not a trick question and it does have relevance in regards to this topic.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Please join us back on the topic. If you keep insisting on hijacking the thread, simply make your own so the rest of us can get back to the point of the OP.

Are you saying that the accepted teaching that Mary is omnipotent is a false doctrine or true doctrine? You have not made that point clear.

True or false doctrine?

Refuting your false definition of Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat is part and parcel with defending against your gross misrepresentation of what Liguori wrote and what the Church teaches.

It has not escaped my notice (nor that of others, I’m sure) that you have as yet refused to answer adequately the assertions that Liguori is using figurative language. All you’ve done on this front is to harp briefly on the ridiculous notion that he means exactly what he says (when, in the next few lines, he makes it abundantly clear that he was speaking figuratively), and then abandon the point altogether.

On a side note, I find it grotesquely ironic that you, Atemi, would accuse anyone of “hijacking a thread”, when that is your standard modus operandi.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Atemi]

It is not doctrine at all, regardless of its truth or falsity.

“Doctrine” means “teaching,” Lily.

And yes it is teaching.

It is either true or false doctrine.

You have not said which it is.

Again I need to point out that it were, Aquinas’ writings denying the idea of the Immaculate Conception would be doctrine alongside Ineffabilis Deus and the writings of other Church Doctors affirming that same Immaculate Conception. Preposterous.

But let us not forget that the RCC presently denies that Aquinas or Augustine were correct.

You would say that Aquinas’ position is false doctrine.

Where is the same correction about Ligouri?

It has been long enough by now.

…

 

[Atemi]

Nice try. Totally bogus, but nice try. You really seem determined to avoid the meat of the issue here. I laid out the entire issue for you as plain as day. But I’m happy to do it again, if for no other reason than to highlight your obstinate refusal to deal with the issue, but rather to keep having faux fainting spells over the word “omnipotent”.

Everyone else is having fainting spells, not me.

I already know and accept what the word means and how Liguori plainly used it. It is the Catholics in the thread that will deny both.

Liguori defines Mary’s omnipotence as being that God grants everything that Mary asks. Now this is clearly not omnipotence in the usual meaning. Intellectual honesty compels one to acknowledge this. IMO, Liguori should not have created a new definition of “omnipotent” for dramatic effect, but he did, and that is the definition we are stuck with if we wish to discuss his writings.

Yes. He said Mary has all the power of God…she is “omnipotent.”

Why do I care about HOW she is omnipotent? Just that she is said to be, is more than enough.

So, there is only one question remaining. Is it heretical to believe that God grants every request that Mary makes? As I said, I am not aware of any Catholic teaching that answers “yes” or “no” to this question, but it seems at least reasonable to believe that he does grant every request, for the simple reason that if our wills are united to God’s will in heaven, we will never request anything that goes against God’s will.

All posted here already:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2664697&postcount=1

Now you will no doubt again make the bogus accusation that I am hijacking this thread as if discussing what Liguori actually means by his words is somehow hijacking a thread which centers around Liguori’s words

I did not say you were hijacking the thread. Please read the posts better.

So the ball is now in your court again. Will you address the one and only issue, whether it is heretical to believe what Liguori asserts, or will you continue to avoid the one and only issue?

Please name all the other created beings in Catholic theology that are also omnipotent in this same fashion or otherwise.

A list of the created beings that your church teaches have the very same power of God Himself would be helpful here. Which other saints and which angels are also omnipotent according to Catholicism?

It is interesting that everyone and their brother first denied that Mary was omnipotent, but now it is just a plain old understandable point of Catholicism.

My how things change…

…

 

[Atemi]

Refuting your false definition of Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat is part and parcel with defending against your gross misrepresentation of what Liguori wrote and what the Church teaches.

What false definition?

That it is designed to be used by all Catholics as a measure of a book’s orthodoxy?

That is irrefutable…at least rationally.

It has not escaped my notice (nor that of others, I’m sure) that you have as yet refused to answer adequately the assertions that Liguori is using figurative language. All you’ve done on this front is to harp briefly on the ridiculous notion that he means exactly what he says (when, in the next few lines, he makes it abundantly clear that he was speaking figuratively), and then abandon the point altogether.

Ligouri really means to say that Mary has all the power of God…and he said that repetitively.

There is no way around this. The mere fact that I must defend the teachings of your Saint is amazing to me.

He knew exactly the word he chose and meant it.

What he surely did not want readers to go away with is that Mary is definitely not all powerful.

That would be ridiculous.

…

 

[childofmary1143]

What I have learned from this thread is that while St. Alphonsus said Our Lady is Omnipotent, it is as CRITICALLY important to understand it in the CONTEXT that he said it. He clearly did not mean it in the same way that we would use it today or even how the Church defines it.

Given how he defined that, I have no doubt that The Glories of Mary is authentic and obedient to the Deposit of the Faith.

Thank you all for your informative posts.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What I have learned from this thread is that while St. Alphonsus said Our Lady is Omnipotent, it is as CRITICALLY important to understand it in the CONTEXT that he said it. He clearly did not mean it in the same way that we would use it today or even how the Church defines it.

Given how he defined that, I have no doubt that The Glories of Mary is authentic and obedient to the Deposit of the Faith.

Thank you all for your informative posts.

So your question has been answered. I think the mods can close this now.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

What false definition?

That it is designed to be used by all Catholics as a measure of a book’s orthodoxy?

That is irrefutable…at least rationally.

In this thread, you have implied that the presence of the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur in a book elevates that book to the level of official Church teaching - in other words, making it a part of the deposit of faith. That is patently false – if one knows what one is talking about.

Ligouri really means to say that Mary has all the power of God…and he said that repetitively.

But you are obstinately and ignorantly (or, worse: obstinately and maliciously) ignoring the fact that also attributes that figurative omniscience directly and solely to the Grace of God! That makes it obvious to anyone but the most stubbornly anti-Catholic readers that he is glorifying God while at the same time illustrating Mary’s efficacy as an intercessor.

To persist in denying that fact is to argue from false premises.

There is no way around this. The mere fact that I must defend the teachings of your Saint is amazing to me.

He knew exactly the word he chose and meant it.

What he surely did not want readers to go away with is that Mary is definitely not all powerful.

That would be ridiculous.

But you have defined nothing, Atemi. You have taken one statement entirely out of context as the basis for your misrepresentation, and in the process thrown out the point that Liguori was making in the first place.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I ripped this off of another forum that popped up when I googled “troll” and “forum”:

An “Internet troll” or “Forum Troll” or “Message Board Troll” is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

snip

Trolling is a form of harassment that can take over a discussion. Well meaning defenders can create chaos by responding to trolls. The best response is to ignore it, or to report a message to a forum moderator.

snip

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction and not to respond to trolling messages. It is well known that most people don’t read messages that nobody responds to, while 99% of forum visitors first read the longest and the largest threads with the most answers.

Food for thought.

Peace,
Dante

 

[VociMike]

I ripped this off of another forum that popped up when I googled “troll” and “forum”:

Food for thought.

Peace,
Dante

Honest discourse depends upon honest discoursers.

 

[MariaG]

Since the definition of omnipotent is in question in the mind of one, I feel that this is good to be reposted. Clearly, even in the dictionary, there are different kinds of omnipotence Odd but true.

*Virtually *unlimited authority.

PS. the 2nd definition (less literal) of omnipotent in Merriam-Websters is " having virtually unlimited authority or influence". Virtually unlimited? In Dictionary.com the 2nd definition is still broader…" having very great or unlimited authority or power."

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

:banghead:

Jesus, Who is omnipotent, made Mary also omnipotent; though of course it is always true that where the Son is omnipotent by nature, the Mother is so only by grace. But that she is so is evident from the fact that, whatever the Mother asks for, the Son never denies her…

Is the above understanding of *omnipotence *really the traditional and literal understanding of omnipotence? No, not at all! Whenever he uses the word *omnipotence *in relation to Virgin Mary he doesn’t, strictly speaking mean omnipotence, because **what he defined as omnipotence of Mary is logically not omnipotence. So it is as clear as ever that St. Alphonsus is using a figurative language and is not being literal.

:juggle:

THERE IS NO FURTHER NEED TO DISCUSS THIS. WE HAVE SAID IT NUMBER OF TIMES AND ATEMI IS NOT LISTENING AND KEEPS REPEATING THE THING OVER AND OVER. **CAN A MODERATOR PLEASE CLOSE THING THREAD? **